Liberal and Marxist Conceptions of the Class Struggle

Published:ProsveshcheniyeNo. 5, May 1913.

      Signed:V. Ilyin.

      Published according to theProsveshcheniyetext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 19,

      pages119-124.Translated:The Late George HannaTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

A.Yermansky,a liquidator, poured down an amazing
abundance of angry words inNasha Zaryaon my criticism of his
(and Gushka’s) point of view on the question of the political role of the
big commercial and industrial bourgeoisie (ProsveshcheniyeNos. 5–7).[1]

Mr.Yermansky,with his vituperation and recollections of old
“insults” (including the “insult” to Mr. Dan & Co., who tried,
unsuccessfully, to split the St. Petersburg Social-Democratic organisation
in 1907), triesto concealthe real substance of the issue.

Weshall, however, not permit Mr. Yermansky to conceal the substance of
the present dispute by recalling undeserved insults to and defeats of the
liquidators. For the present dispute concerns a very important question of
principle that comes up again and again for a thousand different reasons.

Tobe precise, it is the question of the liberal falsification of
Marxism, the substitution of a Marxist, revolutionary conception of the
class struggle by a liberal conception. We shall never tire of explaining
this ideological basis of all the disputes between the Marxists and the
liquidators.

Mr.A. Yermansky writes:

“The‘Marxist’ Ilyin refuses to recognise, in the
   activities of industrial organisations, the class struggle ‘on a
   nation-wide (and partly even international) scale’ as I [Yermansky]
   described them in my article. Why?  Because of the ‘absence’ here ‘of the
   fundamental feature of thenation-wideorstate-wide—the organisation of state
   power’”...(Nasha Zarya, p. 55).

“The‘Marxist’ Ilyin refuses to recognise, in the
   activities of industrial organisations, the class struggle ‘on a
   nation-wide (and partly even international) scale’ as I [Yermansky]
   described them in my article. Why?  Because of the ‘absence’ here ‘of the
   fundamental feature of thenation-wideorstate-wide—the organisation of state
   power’”...(Nasha Zarya, p. 55).

Hereis an exposition ofthe substanceof the question given
by Mr. Yermansky himself, who does everything possible and impossible to
evade that substance! No matter how he may accuse me of distorting his
views and of all the mortal sins, no matter how he twists and turns, even
seeking refuge in recollections of the 1907 split, the truth will out.

Mythesis, therefore, is clear—the basic feature of the nation-wide
is the organisation of state power.

Youdo not share that view, my angry opponent? You do not think this
the only Marxist view?

Thenwhy not say so straight out? Why not counterpose a correct view to
an incorrect one? If the view that the fundamental feature of the
nation-wide is the organisation of state power is, in your opinion, only
Marxism in inverted commas, why do you not refute my error and expoundyourunderstanding of Marxism clearly, precisely and without
evasion?

Theanswer to these questions will be clear to the reader if we quote
the passage from Mr. A. Yermansky which followedimmediately afterthe one quoted above:

“Ilyinwants the big Russian bourgeoisie to carry on
   their class struggle in a different way, he wants them to try to bring
   about a change in the entire state system. Ilyin wants, the bourgeoisie do
   not want—and the one at fault, of course, is Yermansky the ‘liquidator’,
   who ‘substitutes theliberalconception of the class struggle for
   the conception of the class struggle in the Marxist sense’.”

“Ilyinwants the big Russian bourgeoisie to carry on
   their class struggle in a different way, he wants them to try to bring
   about a change in the entire state system. Ilyin wants, the bourgeoisie do
   not want—and the one at fault, of course, is Yermansky the ‘liquidator’,
   who ‘substitutes theliberalconception of the class struggle for
   the conception of the class struggle in the Marxist sense’.”

Hereyou have Mr. Yermansky’s tirade in full and it will enable you to
get a picture of the evasive liquidatorcaught in the act.

Theevasion is obvious.

HaveI or have I not indicated correctly the “fundamental feature” of
the nation-wide?

Mr.A. Yermansky himself was forced to admit that I indicated precisely
the substance of the matter.

AndMr. Yermansky evades an answer, realising that he has been caught!

Andhaving been caught in the act, Mr. Yermansky evades the question of
the correctness or incorrectness of the fundamental feature I indicated and
jumps over this question to the question of what Ilyin and the bourgeoisie
“want”.But no matter how bold, how daring Mr. Yermansky’s leaps, they do not
disguise the fact that he has been caught.

Whathave “wants” got to do with it, my dear opponent, when the
dispute concerns theconceptof the class struggle?! You had to
admit that I accused you of substituting a liberal for a Marxistconception, and that I indicated the “fundamental feature” of
theMarxistconception as including the organisation of state
power in the idea of a nation-wide class struggle.

Mr.A. Yermansky is such a clumsy polemicist, even if an angry one,
that he gave a clear explanation,by his own example, of the
connection between liquidationism in general and his own, Yermansky’s,
mistakes in particular and the liberal conception of the class struggle!

Thequestion of the class struggle is one of the fundamental questions
of Marxism. It is, therefore, worth while dealing with theconceptof class struggle in greater detail.

Everyclass struggle is a political
struggle.[2]We know that the opportunists, slaves to the ideas of
liberalism, understood these profound words of Marx incorrectly and tried
to put a distorted interpretation on them. Among the opportunists there
were, for instance, the Economists, the elder brothers of the
liquidators. The Economists believed that any clash between classes was a
political struggle. The Economists therefore recognised as “class
struggle” the struggle for a wage increase of five kopeks on the ruble,
and refused to recognise a higher, more developed, nation-wideclassstruggle, the struggle forpolitical aims. The
Economists, therefore, recognised the embryonic class struggle but did not
recognise it in its developed form. The Economists recognised, in other
words, only that part of the class struggle that was more tolerable to the
liberal bourgeoisie, they refused to go farther than the liberals, they
refused to recognise the higher form of class struggle that is unacceptable
to the liberals. By so doing, the Economists became liberal workers’
politicians. By so doing, the Economists rejected the Marxist,
revolutionary conception of the class struggle.

Tocontinue. It is not enough that the class struggle be comes real,
consistent and developed only when it embraces the sphere of politics. In
politics, too, it is possible to restrict oneself to minor matters, and it
is possible to godeeper, to the very foundations. Marxism recognises a class struggle as
fully developed, “nation-wide”,onlyif it does not merely
embrace politics but takes in the most significant thing in politics—the
organisation of state power.

Onthe other hand, the liberals, when the working-class movement has
grown a little stronger, dare not deny the class struggle but attempt to
narrow down, to curtail and emasculate the concept of class
struggle. Liberals are prepared to recognise the class struggle in the
sphere of politics, too, but on one condition—that the organisation of
state power shouldnotenter into that sphere. It is not hard to
under stand which of the bourgeoisie’s class interests give rise to the
liberal distortion of the concept of class struggle.

Now,when Mr. Yermansky rehashed the work of the moderate and
punctilious civil servant Gushka, when he expressed solidarity with him,not noticing(or not wishing to see?) the liberal emasculation of
the concept of class struggle, I pointed out to Mr. Yermansky his chief sin
against theory and general principles. Mr. Yermansky grew angry and began
to use bad language and to twist and turn, being unable to refute what I
had said.

Indoing so, Mr. A. Yermansky proved such a clumsy polemicist that he
exposed himself with particular clarity! “Ilyin wants, the bourgeoisie do
not want,” he writes. We now know what particular features of the point of
view of the proletariat (Marxism) and of the bourgeoisie (liberalism) give
rise to these different “wants”.

Thebourgeoisie “want” to curtail the class struggle, to distort and
narrow the conception andbluntits sharp edge. The proletariat
“wants” this deception exposed. The Marxist wants whoever undertakes to
speak of the class struggle of the bourgeoisie in the name of Marxismto exposethe narrowness, theselfishnarrowness, indeed,
of the bourgeoisconceptionof the class struggle, and not merely
to quote figures, not merely to go into ecstasies over “big” figures. The
liberal “wants” to appraise the bourgeoisie and its class struggle in
such a way asto concealits narrowness,to concealthe
failure to include in the struggle that which is “basic” and most
important.

Mr.A. Yermansky was caught out in discussing inliberal
fashionthe interesting, but ideologically empty or slavishlycompiled figures of Mr. Gushka. Obviously, when this was revealed, there
was nothing left for Mr. A. Yermansky to do but curse and wriggle.

Letus continue the passage from Mr. A. Yermansky’s article where we
left off:

“Itis clear that, in fact, Ilyin is the only person who
   is replacing a study of the real state of affairs by his own
   qualifications, and also [!!] by a stereotyped pattern based on schoolboy
   models drawn from the history of the great French Revolution.”

“Itis clear that, in fact, Ilyin is the only person who
   is replacing a study of the real state of affairs by his own
   qualifications, and also [!!] by a stereotyped pattern based on schoolboy
   models drawn from the history of the great French Revolution.”

Mr.A. Yermansky has got into such a tangle that he be comes ever more
ruthless in “destroying” himself! He does not notice the extent to which
his liberalism is revealed by this angry sally against the “stereotypes”
of the great French Revolution!

Mydear Mr. Yermansky, you must understand (no matter how difficult it
may be for a liquidator to understand) that it is impossible “to study the
real state of affairs”without qualifyingit, without appraising
it from the Marxist, or the liberal, or the reactionary, etc., point of
view!

You,Mr. Yermansky, qualified and still qualify the “study” of the
good civil servant Gushka in liberal fashion and I qualify it in Marxist
fashion. That is what is at the bottom of it all. By leaving your critical
analysison the thresholdof the question ofthe
organisationof state power, you therebyprovedthe liberal
limitations ofyourconception of the class struggle.

Whichwas to be shown!

Yoursally against the “stereotype” of the great French Revolution
gives you away completely. Anybody can understand that a stereotype or a
French model has nothing to do with the matter—for instance, there were
not and could not have been strikes, especially political strikesat
that time, under “stereotype and model” conditions.

Thefact of the matter is that when you became a liquidator you forgot
how to apply therevolutionarypoint of view to an appraisal of
social events. That is where the trouble lies. Marx certainly did not limit
his thinking to “stereotypes and models” taken from the end of the
eighteenth century, but the point of view he adopted was always
revolutionary, he alwaysappraised(“qualified” if you prefer
that“learned” word, my dear Mr. Yermansky!) the class struggle mostprofoundly, always revealing whether it affected “fundamentals”,
always mercilessly berating any timidity of thought, any concealment of
underdeveloped, emasculated, selfishly distorted class struggle.

Theclass struggle at the end of the eighteenth century showed us how
it can become political, how it can develop to really “nation-wide”
forms. Since then capitalism and the proletariat have developed to a
gigantic extent. The “models” of the old do not prevent, for instance,
the study of the newformsof struggle that I have, in part,
outlined above.

Thepoint of view of the Marxist, however, willalwaysrequire
a profound and not a superficial “appraisal”, will always expose the
poverty ofliberaldistortions, understatements and cowardly
concealment.

Letus congratulate Mr. Yermansky on his devoted and splendid
explanation of the way in which the liquidators substitute a liberal
conception of the class struggle for the Marxist conception, forgetting how
to examine social events from the revolutionary point of view.

[1]Seepresent edition Vol. 18 pp. 56–72.—Ed.

[2]SeeK. Marx and F. Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party”,Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1955, p. 42.